Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing that results are ordered by relevance, lists specific returned fields, states no authentication is needed, and mentions the data source (TVmaze.com with CC BY-SA). These details go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand the behavioral characteristics of the call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, then efficiently lists the return fields, ordering, coverage, auth, and source. There is no fluff or redundancy; every piece of information adds value. It is concise yet comprehensive.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has a single required parameter, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: what it searches, what it returns, how results are ordered, global coverage, authentication requirements, and data source. It is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use this tool without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The parameter 'query' is fully described in the schema (minLength, description with examples), giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add new semantic meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides; it only restates 'by title' which is implied. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema covers all the essential details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search 25,000+ TV shows by title' with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the returned fields (name, genres, status, network, rating, dates, runtime, summary, relevance score) and notes global coverage. This distinguishes it from the vast number of sibling tools, especially other search tools (e.g., books.catalog.search, tmdb.movies.search).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context about the scope (worldwide broadcast, cable, streaming) and notes 'No auth required', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It neither names sibling tools nor provides when-not-to-use guidance. The utility of the search for TV shows is implied but not contrasted with other search options.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.